Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Black v. State, 725 N.W.2d 772.

26 citing documents.

Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Michael Edmund Richmond, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“If a district court departs from the presumptive sentence, it must, at the time of sentencing, provide written reasons which specify the substantial and compelling nature of the circumstances.”
Michael Edmund Richmond, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[A] defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if an unqualified promise is made on the sentence to be imposed and that promise is not fulfilled.” d 772, 776 (Minn. App. 2007).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The state argues that Peck did not “receive an unqualified promise regarding the sentence to be imposed,”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Alan Gramentz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eric Alan Gramentz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
04 (Minn. App. 2017) (concluding that agreed-upo n sentence was conditioned on defendant remaining law abiding, and a vi olation of that condition afford ed district court discretion to determine sentence); State v. Batchelor , (determining reduced sentence hinged on plea agreement condition requiring defendant to remain law abiding); (noting that “appellant did not receive an unqualif ied promise regarding the sentence to be imposed” and, despite the district court’ s warnings, appellant entere
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court has stated that “[t]he factors to be considered when determining whether a motion for plea withdrawal is timely a re: (1) the district court’s interest in preserving the finality of convictions; (2) the defendant’s diligence in seeking withdrawal; and (3) whether the delay causes undue prejudice to the state’s prosecution of the case.” (citations omitted).
State v. Montez 899 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Montez 899 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
e law before sentencing and received a more severe sentence, was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the state had made an unconditional promise and the posture of the case was “indistinguishable from Kunshier.”) But Kunshier has been distinguished in cases like appellant’s, where the defendant “did not receive an unqualified promise regarding the sentence to be imposed.” (“observing] that this court has consistently refused to allow defendants to withdraw these types -of conditional gu
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The passage of time is a relevant factor, particularly when resolution of an issue depends on the “faded memories of witnesses.” Id.; (noting that the memories of witnesses likely faded after a two-year delay).
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Williams claims that the district court’s and “due diligence” proves that it applied the wrong standard.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Douglas Neil Raasch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Douglas Neil Raasch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The petitioner bears the burden of establishing facts alleged in the petition by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–44 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that district court’s statements, read into record, regarding reasons for consecutive sentencing “will suffice as a departure report”); (“[A] departure from the guidelines will not be precluded for lack of a departure report.”).
State v. Cubas 838 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Cubas 838 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(noting that “witnesses’ memories of the events have likely faded” after a two-year delay).
State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Weaver 733 N.W.2d 793 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(holding that motion to withdraw guilty plea was untimely when made more than two years later, given that drug evidence had been destroyed and witnesses’ memories had likely faded).